According to Bast, the Heartland Institute “reaches more national and state elected officials, more often, than any other think tank,” having 270 policy advisors in all 50 states. [43],[54], [44]

Bast's resume at Heartland notes that he has published several of Heartland’s periodicals since 1997 including School Reform News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, Budget & Tax News. It also notes that Bast “oversaw its growth from an annual budget in 1984 of $20,000 to a 2017 budget of $6 million and a full-time staff of 40.” [56]

Bast studied economics as an undergraduate at the University of Chicago.He is the author of several free-market books promoting free-market solutions to public policy problems including Eco-sanity: a common sense guide to environmentalism. [42]

Republic Report: “In 1998, you wrote in a Heartland op-ed that smoking cigarettes has little to no adverse health effects,” we noted. “Do you stand by that?”

“No, I never wrote that,” replied Bast. “Why would I have written something like that?” [13]

Bast asked to see the op-ed, and promised to “contest” it. After reading his piece, which claimed that moderate smoking is not deadly and has “few, if any adverse health effects,” Bast said that he actually stood by those words. [57], [13]

In an edition of The Heartlander, Bast reiterated his view that tobacco companies should be allowed to advertise comparative health claims. Bast wrote: [59]

“I recently attended a debate over tobacco advertising in which Matthew Meyers, head of the Coalition for Tobacco-Free Kids and a leading anti-tobacco activist, said adult smokers must be denied access to comparative health claims in order to avoid attracting children to tobacco products. Whether advertising targets teenagers or has much influence over their decisions is much disputed. (I addressed that subject back in 1996 in an essay titled 'Joe Camel is Innocent!' which you can still find on Heartland's Web site.) But more to the point, Meyers has no right to deprive smokers of information about the choices they are making.” [59]

May 29, 2002

Bast wrote to Secretary Donald S. Clark of the FTC, arguing in favor of a request by the US. Smokeless Tobacco Company that they should be able to advertise smokeless tobacco as lower risk compared to cigarette smoking. Bast lamented the “chilling effect of overregulation of advertising,” and cited the First Amendment right to commercial speech as support. [60]

January 2, 2002

Bast sent a letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune, writing that “the legal challenges could be, and properly should be, stopped” against the tobacco industry. A copy of the letter was forwarded to Emily Sedgwick of Americans for Tax Reform, according to archived tobacco industry documents. [61]

“Besides thousands of frivolous civil suits pursued by lawyers who long ago forgot the meaning of justice, the U .S . Justice Department itself wants $50 million in taxpayer dollars to pursue a legal case against the tobacco industry initiated by the Clinton administration. When will it end?” Bast asked. [61]

September 23, 1999

Budget documents apparently documenting pending grants for tobacco company Phillip Morris included an official request from Joe Bast for $35,000 in funding for the Heartland Institute. Bast sent the funding request to Roy Marden, Manager of Industry Affairs and Phillip Morris, to renew funding for the Heartland institute in 1999. The letter notes that Marden's funding levels have already granted him a seat on Heartland's Board of Directors. Below is an excerpt from the letter, with emphasis added: [62]

“Thank you for inviting me to request renewed general operating support for The Heartland Institute for 1999. I note that Philip Morris contributed $5,000 last August (for a Gold Table at our annual benefit) and $25,000 in October (general operating support). It also has allowed you to serve on our Board of Directors, which has produced many positive results for the entire organization.

Because Heartland does many things that benefit Philip Morris' bottom line, things that no other organization does, I hope you will consider boosting your general operating support this year to $30,000 and once again reserve a Gold Table for an additional $5,000.” [62]

An archived “weekly bullet report” for Phillip Morris's “federal tobacco team” notes that at least one member of the team met with Joe Bast, while another “Met with Heartland Institute officials and JPH.” The details of the meetings are not listed. [64]

“So whether or not you smoke, you have good reasons to oppose the lawsuits against tobacco companies as well as any proposed settlement. Please don't stand quietly by while any industry is taken down by a gang of self-serving lawyers, bureaucrats, and politicians,” Bast concluded. [65]

“I think you will find it a timely contribution to the ongoing debate over government regulation of the tobacco industry,” Bast wrote. [67]

August 21, 1996

Bast wrote an article titled “Joe Camel Is Innocent!” and published via Heartland where he offers “a few words in defense of smoking.” Bast points to news pieces by Peter Jennings of ABC and columnist Garry Willis who argued that the use of the cartoon Joe Camel “somehow proves that Camels’ manufacturer, R. J. Reynolds, is targeting kids.” Bast argues that, in fact, “cartoons are used to pitch scores of products that could only be of use to adults.” [68]

Bast also responded to Jennings's and Willis's claims that Republican opposition to FDA regulation could be due to campaign contributions from the tobacco industry:

“With respect to smoking, there’s plenty of evidence—including a recent study by the Congressional Research Service-that sound science concerning the health effects of 'second-hand smoke' doesn’t support the claims being made by EPA and FDA,” Bast responded. [68]

Stance on Climate Change

May 8, 2018

The New York Times reported The Heartland Institute was one of several conservative think tanks that communicated with the Environmental Protection Agency in the past year in order to stage debates around climate change. In a statement, Bast denied that the Heartland Institute holds views outside of the mainstream of scientific consensus: [84]

“Our view is that the causes and consequences of climate change are very complex and future climate conditions are probably impossible to forecast,” Joe Bast said.

“We, I think we're responsible—one of two or three groups that could genuinely claim responsibility for defeating cap and trade and carbon tax proposals at the national level for a ten year period, pretty much from 2007 until today,” Bast told H. Sterling Bernett during the podcast.

“I think we're the reason President Trump discovered, or concluded that climate change is not a real problem and not a crisis facing the country, and that by running on that—by defending coal miners for example—he could appeal to a very big base in the United States. People who expected all along that global warming was junk science, that they would rather have good jobs and inexpensive energy than pursue some liberal dream of, you know, replacing all fossil fuel with wind and solar power.”

“So Trump ran on that. He won, and it's been remarkable: for the last year, he's been implementing many of the promises that he made as a candidate.” (Emphasis added)

“Steve was an important channel for us to the White House,” Bast said. “[..] It’s changed with Steve Bannon leaving.” [78]

October 2017

A leaked email from Joe Bast revealed what he viewed as key takeaway points from the Heartland Institute's closed-door meetings on the “Red Team – Blue Team exercise on climate change” proposed by Scott Pruitt's EPA. As E&E News reported, the email and notes provided “a broad look at skeptics' policy playbook under the Trump administration while exposing stark suspicions about Pruitt.” View the first of several points below: [71],[53]

”* How to effectively market our ideas was a theme of many presentations, many
remarks during the panels, and conversation over meals. Among the ideas I heard
offered, we should…

* be briefing news reporters and news readers at Fox News.
* reach the President by tweeting on the issue.
* hold more congressional hearings.
* simplify the issue by focusing on one or only a few arguments and images.
* identify a few good spokespersons and focus on promoting them.
* stop chasing the other side’s latest argument and focus instead on the benefits of CO2.
* focus on the 'tuning scandal' that discredits the models.
* turn debate from referring to median temperatures to high temperatures, which show no trend.
* find independent funding for Roy Spencer, David Schnare, Willie Soon, Craig Idso, David Legates, etc.
* push Pruitt to start a proceeding for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding… he won’t do it without pressure.
* we need to be able to say 'EPA is reconsidering whether CO2 is a pollutant.'”

Bast adds:

”* Many people said 'we need a PR plan' or a 'single strategy,' otherwise we will continue to lose the battle with AGW alarmists. I (Joe Bast) observed that (a) we aren’t losing, in fact we are winning the global warming war as shown by public opinion polls, election results, scientific journals, and the agenda of the President of the United States, (b) Heartland, CEI, and other organizations and individuals in the room do have plans and strategies, (c) a marketing plan is much more than agreeing (with you) on a few slogans or spokespersons, and (d) adopting a single strategy is unrealistic and unlikely to be effective. We can always do better, and will, but we should not stop doing what is working.

* The briefing revealed that Heartland, CEI, Cato, Heritage, and other groups have done a poor job communicating their STRATEGIES to people in the room. More transparency is needed. We tend to hide, or at least not advertise, our playbooks for fear the other side will use them to launch counter-offenses, which we are sure would be far better funded and more warmly received by the media than our own efforts. But we ought to find a way to communicate our plans to our friends.”

“How could two teams of scientists come to such obviously contradictory conclusions on seemingly every point that matters in the debate over global warming? There are many reasons why scientists disagree, the subject, by the way, of an excellent book a couple years ago titled Wrong by David H. Freedman. A big reason is IPCC is producing what academics call “post-normal science” while NIPCC is producing old-fashioned “real science.” [10]

March 26, 2014

Leading up to the Heartland Institute's Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-9) in Las Vegas, Nevada, July 7-9, 2014, Jim Lakely and Joseph Bast publish a press release in which Bast is quoted:

“The scientists Heartland works with demanded we host a ninth conference this year to foster a much-needed frank, honest, and open discussion of the current state of climate science and we just couldn’t refuse. The public, the press, and the scientific community will all benefit from learning about the latest research and observational data that indicate climate science is anything but ‘settled.’” [17]

September 19, 2013

“The IPCC – and all the mainstream media and environmental extremists who cite it uncritically — really have become a joke in the scientific community.” [8]

In reference to the Chinese Academy of Sciences' rebuttal of the IPCC's assessment, just months before COP19 in Warsaw, Poland, Bast said:

“This is a historic moment in the global debate about climate change… The translation and publication of a comprehensive critique of the IPPC’s alarmist reports by a leading national academy of sciences is one more sign of the trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism.” [7]

“The benefits of a modest warming would outweigh the costs – by $8.4 billion a year in 1990 dollars by the year 2060, according to Robert Mendelsohn at Yale University – thanks to longer growing seasons, more wood fiber production, lower construction costs, lower mortality rates, and lower rates of morbidity (illness).” [2]

Key Deeds

“The purpose of this event is to promote and expand energy freedom in the United States, as outlined in President Donald Trump’s bold America First Energy Plan, a proposal first released during the 2016 presidential campaign. The president’s plan marks a decisive change in direction from the Obama administration’s 'war on fossil fuels' and focus on the theory of catastrophic man-caused climate change,” the conference description reads. [86]

Bast appeared on an episode of the Heartland Institute's Daily Podcast with H. Sterling Burnett to discuss the past and future of the Heartland Institute including his stepping down as President and CEO and his planned departure from the organization. Bast outlined some of the Institute's early work on climate change: [83]

[8:10] HSB: “You mentioned climate. Let's get to that. Under your leadership, the Heartland Institute became a leader and has been recognized as such in the realm of climate science, economics, and policy. Why did the Heartland Institute become so deeply involved in this one issue? What did you see that others didn't about the importance of climate change as an issue, and what impact has Heartland's efforts had?”

JB: “Well, Heartland started addressing climate actually way back, ah, 1994…1995. We did our first book that had a chapter on climate change in it. We addressed it primarily from an economic perspective, arguing that the cost of reducing emissions was really high compared to the sketchy evidence that we had about the cost of harms and offsetting benefits. Nobody listened to us. We did three, four, or five I thought really good policy studies on this topic looking specifically for example, at a carbon tax on agriculture, and the studies got almost no attention.

“It turns out the reason they got no attention is because people were afraid of catastrophic climate change. When the building is on fire, people don't argue or negotiate the price of fire extinguishers; they're all too busy running for the doors, and so we concluded that we had to put the fire out before we can get a reasonable conversation to take place here. We've go to address this underlying fear of catastrophic climate change. So we did a deep dive in 2007; we said, where is this fear coming from? Is it based on sound science? Who are the scientists who are in this debate? Do they need our help? Why aren't they getting a better hearing? And why aren't Cato, and Heritage, and AEI, and other think tanks engaged in this part of the debate?

“And what we learned was that virtually none of the free market think tanks were addressing the science. They weren't doing that because they felt it wasn't their job. They're mostly economists and lawyers and they didn't want to start getting into the physics of climate change. I respect that. But the result was a gap: there was no free market voice on the climate science debate that was taking place, and that was a critical error on the part of free market activists. Unless we address the science, we are going to lose this debate.

“So we recruited scientists from all around the country. We ended up producing the series called Climate Change Reconsidered for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. We had a tremendous impact. I mean, it's quite remarkable. That book, that series of books, has been cited over 100 times in peer-reviewed articles. The Chinese Academy of Sciences thought so highly of it that it translated it into Chinese and published a condensed volume of Climate Change Reconsidered.

Bast also claimed credit to the Heartland Institute for both defeating cap and trade proposals, and for President Donald Trump's views on climate change: [83]

“We, I think we're responsible—one of two or three groups that could genuinely claim responsibility for defeating cap and trade and carbon tax proposals at the national level for a ten year period, pretty much from 2007 until today.

I think we're the reason President Trump discovered, or concluded that climate change is not a real problem and not a crisis facing the country, and that by running on that—by defending coal miners for example—he could appeal to a very big base in the United States. People who expected all along that global warming was junk science, that they would rather have good jobs and inexpensive energy than pursue some liberal dream of, you know, replacing all fossil fuel with wind and solar power.”

“So Trump ran on that. He won, and it's been remarkable: for the last year, he's been implementing many of the promises that he made as a candidate.” [83]

Bast said he was “anxious about the future” given the possibility that Hillary Clinton could have won the election, but that Trump's victory gave the country “a second chance at freedom”:

“Now Donald Trump wasn't the first choice for most of us. He might not even have been the final choice, but the alternative was truly scary. You know, Hillary Clinton was committed to finishing what Barack Obama started, and that was pretty much destroying the local decentralized education system in America—replacing it with a centralized curriculum. Destroying the decentralized health care system that used to depend primarily on private insurance companies and doctors in private practice. So replacing that with Obamacare, destroying the financial sector.

“I mean all the commanding heights of a free society, President Obama targeted and did major damage for eight years, and for whatever reasons Congress and the courts didn't seem able to stop him. Hillary Clinton was committed to waging that war for another four years. I'm not sure we could have recovered from that. So we got a second chance at freedom with the election of Donald Trump. Incidentally I decided to step down, now, before the election of Donald Trump, so if anyone is wondering if that influenced my decision it didn't. But it was a second chance we probably didn't deserve to preserve freedom in America. It's very precarious. It is perched on an edge. And so I'm very anxious about the future of freedom,” Bast said.

“What will Heartland Institute's role be in that? I am optimistic. I think Heartland is going to grow. There's a much bigger niche for what we do than what I was able to raise money for to fill. You know, I raised about six million dollars a year for the Heartland Institute. We should be at eight or ten. We should have twenty, twenty five guys working in our, just in our government relations office working with state legislators, giving them the information that they need, testifying when they need testimony, helping them draft legislation. I mean, this is all exciting stuff that they're asking us to do and we don't have the staff to do it.

So I think under Tim Huelskamp's leadership we're going to raise that money. We're going to expand the staff and fill that niche. So Heartland should be doing well in future years. I only hope and pray that freedom in the United States is going to continue rising while the Heartland Institute is performing its job.”

“The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”

Heartland pulled the billboard after an outcry from supporters and opponents alike. It had run for “exactly 24 hours.”

“This provocative billboard was always intended to be an experiment. And after just 24 hours the results are in: It got people’s attention,” Bast wrote in the 2012 Heartland press release announcing the cancellation of the billboard. [82]

“We know that our billboard angered and disappointed many of Heartland’s friends and supporters, but we hope they understand what we were trying to do with this experiment. We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate,” Bast wrote in 2012. [82]

Writing in 2017, Bast claimed the billboard had actually been a success:

“The billboard hit its target hard, as good satire does. It broke a news blackout that environmentalists and the legacy media had imposed on Heartland and other groups that challenged the Gore-Obama dogma on global warming. Far from hurting Heartland, as Banerjee claims, it saved us: 2012 was a breakthrough year for us with record funds raised, record media attention, and record attendance at our events.” [79]

“That year also marked the moment Heartland’s views on climate change moved from marginal to mainstream.” [79]

Bast also claimed that Banerjee's statement “isn't true” that “Hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations such as ExxonMobil and wealthy individuals such as the billionaires Charles and David Koch have supported the development of a sprawling network, which includes Heartland and other think tanks, advocacy groups and political operatives.” [79]

“ExxonMobil did contribute around $50,000 a year to Heartland for about a decade,” Bast added, but it was “never more than 5% of our annual budget.” [79]

Bastasch said that Jim Lakely, Heartland's communication director, had claimed the article was an effort to delegetimize Heartland and its work. [78]

“The tone of it is that the climate realist right isn’t happy with Trump’s progress,” Lakely told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Nothing could be further from the truth.” [78]

Bast had similar comments, saying “the left demonizes us” while pointing to the publishing of Heartland's leaked 2012 budget documents as an example. According to Bast, Heartland also never specifically told the EPA who to pick as part of a climate “Red Team.” [78]

“I have never met Scott Pruitt,” Bast said. “We’ve always tried to remain arm’s length from politics. It’s never been a priority for us to engage in politics.” [78]

“The real way we measure our impact is through public opinion surveys,” Bast said, referring to Heartland's surveys on public global warming attitudes. [78]

However, Bast did admit to a relationship with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, telling Bastasch that he talked frequently with Bannon regarding orders to combat climate policies, like urging Trump to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. [78]

“Steve was an important channel for us to the White House,” Bast said. “[..] It’s changed with Steve Bannon leaving.” [78]

Bast also said that Heartland's new president, Tim Huelskamp, “has been invaluable to finding new allies in the administration,” Bastasch wrote. [78]

“How much progress has been made in implementing it, and what remains to be done?

“What scientific and economic evidence is there that the plan is putting the nation on the right path for economic growth, environmental protection, or both?”

In a fundraising letter obtained by DeSmog before the conference, Fred Palmer had promoted the event as having the goal to “review the scientific and economic evidence that exposes the fraud inherent in the Obama-era regulation regime” while discussing “the overwhelming benefits of fossil fuels to us all.” [48]

As reported at the Houston Chronicle, speakers notably included two Trump Administration officials: Richard W. Westerdale II of the State Department and Vincent DeVito of the Department of Interior. David Bernhardt, deputy secretary of the Interior Department, was also formerly listed as a Heartland conference speaker, but apparently withdrew. [73]

Scott Pruitt also addressed the conference in a recorded video, personally thanking Heartland for “what you're doing to advance energy” and “for what you're doing to advance natural resources. [76]

“With his nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White, President Trump continues to make excellent choices for his nominations in the areas of environmental protection and energy. White is an outstanding candidate for this important position. Her past service as a chairman and commissioner of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality gives her the proper experience, and her work before and after that with private-sector groups engaged in environment and energy policy shows a deep familiarity with the issues and trade-offs involved. Best of all, White’s writing and public speaking make it clear she is committed to reversing the intense politicization of science and policy that occurred under President Obama and that started even before then,” Bast said, adding, “We finally will have a head of CEQ who genuinely understands the science and economics of energy policy, and who will resist efforts to debase and ‘weaponize’ it in support of a political agenda.” [51]

Hartnett-White has a history of representing fossil fuel interests. During her tenure as chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), appointed by then-governor Rick Perry, the TCEQ was found to “not consistently ensure violators are held accountable.” According to a 2003 Texas State Audit, polluters “often have economic benefits that exceed their penalties, which could reduce their incentive to comply.” [52]

As head of the CEQ, Hartnett-White would be in charge of coordinating interagency science, climate, and environmental policy and oversee things such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process and agency compliance with that law. [50]

“Though CEQ oversees the NEPA process, it remains unclear how seriously Hartnett-White will take the NEPA review process, for decades seen as a bedrock of U.S. environmental regulation since NEPA became law in 1970,” DeSmog's Steve Horn reported. [50]

September 28, 2017

According to leaked emails, The Heartland Institute held closed door meetings to identify candidates for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's “red team” exercise on climate change. As E&E News reported, Bast's email, which includes his notes of one of the meetings, provided “a broad look at skeptics' policy playbook under the Trump administration while exposing stark suspicions about Pruitt.” [53]

“EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's proposal for a Red Team-Blue Team exercise is vague, probably would not be effective, and is unlikely to come about,” Bast wrote in the email. “More likely to occur is a similar exercise directed by the head of another department (NASA, NOAA, or OSTP) with more interest than Pruitt has shown in the scientific debate and more likely to stick around to see the results.”

According to the notes, those present at the meeting included David Shnare who “described how policy can be changed from 'inside the swamp' via seven 'legal points of entry' such as legal challenges under the Information Quality Act and violations of peer review,” Heartland president Tim Huelskamp, David Legates, Harry MacDougald, and Jim Lakely.

“Although The Heartland Institute has been subject to many attacks from so-called global alarmists, after Joe Bast’s presence was spotted in the Rose Garden an effort was made to harm President Trump by attacking Heartland’s Joe Bast,” The Illinois Review wrote. [38]

Bast, writing at the Heartland Institute's blog, said “I was honored to be invited, and view it as a sign that our efforts for the past 20 years on the climate change issue have not gone unnoticed. But the left noticed my attendance as well, and so this week they tried to hurt President Trump by attacking me.” [39]

In the article, Bast also penned a response to four U.S. senators who had mailedU.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos asking for correspondence between the Heartland Institute and her department. Bast's June 8 letter reads: [40], [41]

“For the record, The Heartland Institute has contacted nearly all members of the Trump cabinet. We have sent extensive information to more than 100 members of the administration explaining who we are, enclosing multiple publications (including books, policy studies, and videos) of most relevance to their positions, and offering to make our extensive network of some 370 policy experts available to provide further assistance. Some have gotten back to us.” [41]

Bast points to an outdated 1922 article on Artic ice as a good “conversation starter” and “a good way to poke a stick in the eye of your global warming alarmist friends.” [37]

“Global warming alarmists often claim the recent Arctic warming is unprecedented or must be due to the human presence. On its face, the 1922 article makes those claims dubious. Closer study reveals they haven’t made the case,” Bast wrote. [37]

Bast, representing Heartland, is a signatory to an open letter to President Donald J. Trump urging him “to withdraw fully from the Paris Climate Treaty and to stop all taxpayer funding of UN global warming programs.” [34]

In an interview with Mother Jones, Bast said that rescinding the EPA's endangerment finding was the “number one priority” that he sees for the EPA under Trump. “We’ve been at this for 33 years. We have a lot of people in our network, and many of these people are now in this new administration,” Bast said. He added that Transition staff and new appointees in the Trump administration “occasionally ask us for advice and names of people.” [33]

Championed by Senators Whitehouse, Markey, Schatz, Boxer, Merkley, Warren, Sanders, and Franken, the resolution condemns what they are calling the #WebOfDenial — “interconnected groups – funded by the Koch brothers, major fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, identity-scrubbing groups like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, and their allies – developed and executed a massive campaign to deceive the public about climate change to halt climate action and protect their bottom lines.” [27]

The open letter addresses the senators, calling them “tyrants”:

“We hear you. Your threat is clear: There is a heavy and inconvenient cost to disagreeing with you. Calls for debate will be met with political retribution. That’s called tyranny. And, we reject it.” [28]

The full list of signatories and their respective organizations is as follows:

“Attempts to intimidate CEI and our allies and silence our policy research are unconstitutional,” said CEI president Kent Lassman. “The First Amendment protects us and everyone has a duty to respect it – even state attorneys general. CEI will continue to fight for all Americans to support the causes in which they believe.” [23]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute received a subpoena from AG Walker on April 7, 2016. On April 20, CEI filed an objection to the subpoena calling it “offensive,” “un-American,” and “unlawful,” and are contending that AG Walker is “violating CEI’s First Amendment rights.” [23]

Joseph Bast is one of several climate change skeptics cc'd on an email from S. Fred Singer in hopes of countering the documentary film “Merchants of Doubt,” which exposes the network of climate change skeptics and deniers trying to delay legislative action on climate change.

The October, 2014 email was leaked to journalists before the documentary was released. “Can I sue for damages?” Singer asked in the email. “Can we get an injunction against the documentary?”

InsideClimate News reports in their article “Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists,” how “Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s.” [18]

InsideClimate News also documented all those who were cc'd on the email, including the following skeptics and groups:

“Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the 'socialist' public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court.” [20]

1:22-1:40 “We have always had floods, we have always had droughts … I think they [The Obama Administration] are trying to whip up public support and attention for a political agenda. He [Obama] is attempting to shut down coal generation in the United States, and in its place, heavily subsidizing wind and solar, and biofuels.”[16]

April 30, 2014

At a mining conference in Denver, CO, Republic Report, cross-posted on DeSmogBlog, spoke to Heartland Institute's president, Joseph Bast, about his past support for the tobacco industry. When first asked by Republic Report, Bast denied that he had ever dismissed concerns about the risks of smoking. [13]

In a report entitled, “Please Don't Poop in My Salad,” (PDF) released by Heartland and written by Bast in July of 2006, Bast was quoted on page 57 (pg. 65 in PDF format), “A fourth lie is that even moderate smoking is deadly. Several experts (including two who are very anti-smoking) have told me that smoking fewer than seven cigarettes a day does not raise a smoker's risk of lung cancer.” [14]

Bast published an Op/Ed piece in Forbes the same week the IPCC released its latest report: “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” In the article, Bast states that the NIPCC's latest report, released that same day, fully addresses the IPCC's eight “reasons for concern” made in the final draft of its Summary for Policymakers. Bast asks Forbes' readers to not just wonder if man-made global warming is a crisis, but to “understand it yourself,” by “read[ing] one or a few chapters of one of the NIPCC reports, and ask if what you read is logical, factual, and relevant to the debate.” [10]

March 15, 2013

Joseph Bast, alongside Walter Cunningham, Thomas Wysmuller, and Harold Doiron spoke at a panel discussion of The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) where they explain “why they are urging government agencies to cease their ‘unbridled advocacy’ of Anthropogenic Global Warming & Return Integrity to the Scientific Method.” [19] In January 2013, TRCS issued this summary of its findings as follows , according to a press release:

The science that predicts the extent of anthropogenic global warming is not settled science.

There is no convincing physical evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

Computer models need to be validated before being used in critical decision-making.

Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, we have time to study global climate changes and improve our prediction accuracy.

The U.S. government is over-reacting to concerns about anthropogenic global warming.

A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause.

The Heartland Institute's Seventh “International Conference on Climate Change,” took place on May 23, 2012 in Chicago. Heartland President Joseph Bast, during his closing remarks of the conference, appealed for funding from the crowd due to lower attendence numbers and an insufficient ability to raise funds:

“Please consider supporting the Heartland Institute. These conferences are expensive, and I’m not a good fundraiser so as a result I don’t raise enough money to cover them, we really scramble to make payroll as a result to cover these expenses. If you can afford to make a contribution, please do. If you know someone, if you’ve got a rich uncle or somebody in the family or somebody that you work with, please give them a call and ask them if they would consider making a tax-deductable contribution to the Heartland Institute.” [11]

May 4, 2012

The Heartland Institute released a billboard campaign in Chicago featuring “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson and Fidel Castro. Heartland's intent with the campaign was to portray those who believe in the overwhelming evidence of man-made climate change as “radical [and] on the fringe of society.” [12]

“Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the “mainstream” media, and liberal politicians say about global warming….

The point is that believing in global warming is not “mainstream,” smart, or sophisticated. In fact, it is just the opposite of those things. Still believing in man-made global warming – after all the scientific discoveries and revelations that point against this theory – is more than a little nutty. In fact, some really crazy people use it to justify immoral and frightening behavior.”

“We will stop running [the billboard] at 4:00 p.m. CST today. (It’s a digital billboard, so a simple phone call is all it takes.) The Heartland Institute knew this was a risk when deciding to test it, but decided it was a necessary price to make an emotional appeal to people who otherwise aren’t following the climate change debate.” [12]

Bast was signed to a letter to President Bush written by Myron Ebell and Fred L. Smith. The letter congratulated President George W. Bush for not attending the World Summit on sustainable Development in Johannesburg, and warned against a “a World Environmental Organization,” which the authors described as “the worst possible outcome at Johannesburg.” [31]

1995

Wrote and designed a series of six brochures on environmental issues for distribution to elected officials, journalists, and other audiences. [3]

Bast presented a workshop at ALEC's 1991 Washington State meeting, according to archived documents. Bast presented at a workshop titled “Controlling State Spending: How to Work With State Think Tanks” sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. [70]

“This workshop will give examples of how state-level public policy 'think tanks' are contributing to policymakers' understanding of budget and spending issues—particularly structural, long-term problems—while also elevating the level of public debate against the backdrop of special interest politics and bureaucratic inertia. A directory of state-based policy research institutes will be distributed with consulting assistance outlined for ALEC members seeking to help establish institutes in states that do not yet have one,” the description read. [70]

Wrote, co-directed, and co-produced a 20-minute video titled “Coming Out of the Ice.” The video covered a variety of public policy issues such as tort reform, privatization, school reform, and taxes. [3]

"Fossil-fuel companies have spent millions funding anti-global-warming think tanks, purposely creating a climate of doubt around the science. DeSmogBlog is the antidote to that obfuscation." ~ BRYAN WALSH, TIME MAGAZINE